Reva Dhar vs State of Haryana and Others

J.S. Sekhon, J.—Reva Dhar workman was employed as Assembly Fitter by M/s Printer''s House-respondent No. 3 on May 1, 1981. Thereafter, his services were terminated on January 21,1985 after holding a domestic enquiry. He successfully claimed a reference to the Labour Court from the Haryana Government against respondent No. 3. Before the Labour Court, only M/s Indographic Art Machinery Company, resisted the claim of the workman, who after recording the statement of Mr. Aggarwal, Enquiry Officer, withdrew and an exparte award (copy Annexure P-l) was passed by the Labour Court against M/s Printer''s House on May 19,1988, reinstating the workman with full back wages. Thereafter, M/s Printer''s House-respondent No. 3, got that award set aside from the Labour Court vide order copy Annexure P-2 dated May 25, 1989. The Labour Court, however, ordered that management to deposit half back wages of the first six months and 75% of the remaining period upto date. Thereafter, M/s Indographic Art Machinery Company as well as the workman challenged the order Annexure P-2 of the Labour Court, through separate writ petitions which were accepted by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order copy Annexure P-3 dated November 28,1990, quashing the impugned order (Annexure P-2) and the original award of the Labour Court was restored. M/s Printer''s House has filed two Letters Patent Appeals No. 1 and 2 of 1991, wherein an exparte stay order regarding implementation of the original award was passed but it was got vacated by the workman on May 13,1991. During the pendency of those Letters Patent Appeals, the workman knocked the door of this Court through the present writ petition on January 8,1992 craving for implementing the award of the Labour Court as well as for prosecution of the employer-management M/s Printer''s House contending that the representation Annexure P-7 filed by him to the Labour Commissioner, had ended in smoke. During the pendency of this writ petition, Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order August 24, 1992 whereby the original award of the Labour Court was set aside and appropriate government was directed to make a composite reference between the workman and both the managements in order to identify the employer of the workman, by the Labour Court. Consequently, the Government had made such reference as per statement of the learned counsel for the parties at bar and the matter is still pending before the Labour Court.

This writ petition is resisted by M/s Printer''s House - respondent No. 3 only on the ground that since the Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the answering respondent had already been admitted before filing of the present writ petition, the Government of Haryana, was justified in not instituting any criminal action u/s 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further maintained that the answering respondent is complying with the order Annexure P-2 of the Labour Court by paying 75% of the wages. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, K.P. Bhandari, J. vide his order dated July 29,1992, directed respondent No. 3, herein, to give a draft of the balance amount of wages and allowances calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn on the next date of hearing. Respondent No. 3 had complied with the said order by paying the amount vide Demand Draft dated August 1, 1992 as is apparent from the interim order of the Single Bench dated August 4,1992. In that order, the management had further undertaken to continue to pay to the petitioner at the rate of the last pay drawn during the pendency of those Letters Patent Appeals by the 7th of each month.

The only grievance of the petitioner which survives for adjudication is that respondent No. 3 having not complied with the order Annexure P-l after 30 days of its publication, it has become liable for prosecution u/s 29 of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 17A and the State Government having not taken any action for instituting such proceedings as provided u/s 34 of the Act, a mandate be issued for doing so. Mr. Sihota, learned counsel for the management had produced a photostat copy of the order of the Labour Commissioner dated May 18,1992 showing that sanction was accorded to lodge the complaint u/s 29 of the Act and the Labour Inspector was authorised to lodge a complaint against the management under the provisions of Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Act. Mrs. Abha Rathore, learned counsel for the workman contends that to her knowledge, so far no complaint has been lodged.

Law is well settled on the point that any modification in the appeal or letters Patent Appeals, would relate back to the date on which the original order was passed. Consequently, the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeals setting aside the original award annexure P-l would relate back in its operation to the date of passing the original award by the Labour Court. Thus, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no justification in directing the concerned government to file a complaint for the prosecution of the management. The workman, however, shall be at liberty to resort to such action if the management fails to implement the fresh award of the Labour Court.

It was also brought to my notice by Mrs. Rathore that the Labour Court has not decided the reference and given the award despite the specific direction of the Letters Patent Appeals Bench that it should be decided within six months of the date of reference by the Government. Consequently, before parting with judgment, the Labour Court is directed to give the award as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition stands disposed of. There is no order as to costs.